d2r_mod_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a multi-step pipeline but gives no details on side effects, permissions, or what gets modified. For a tool that likely performs destructive operations, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but it does not convey necessary information. Conciseness should pack meaningful content into few words; here, it under-specifies the tool, making it unhelpful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and the complexity of a multi-step pipeline, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the order of operations, return value, or how the pipeline affects the mod, leaving major gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description offers no explanation of their purpose or effects. The parameters 'warn_conflicts', 'no_regen', and 'game_dir' are completely unexplained, failing to add any value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Full recovery pipeline: extract → build → deploy', which indicates a composite operation. However, the verb 'update' in the name is not directly mapped to the pipeline, and it does not clearly specify what is being recovered. While it distinguishes itself from individual sibling tools by being a combination, it lacks specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the individual extract, build, and deploy tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.